Why do you say this? From the content of the scrolls themselves (ie the actual teachings of the authors)? Or are you referring to what others wrote about the Essenes, whom little is known about and may not have been the compilers of the library at all?
I was able to do some reading today and look at this a little better. By no means have I been able to go through all of the books I have read that have contributed to my perception on this subject, but I think perhaps this will suffice.
On the celibacy, I think my perception on this has come from secondary sources related to the Essenes.
As to whether or not they are the keepers of the library or the authors of some of the library, I don't think anyone knows. I tend to think that the Qumran community probably originated from Isaiah during the reign of Mannasah. There may be some connection between Esaias and the followers of Esaias, Esse'ene. Then again maybe not.
As to the prohibition of polygamy, in the Damascus Document (page 55 &56 in my edition) the author, who claims to be one of the 'sons of Zadoc', equates having two wives as fornication. Also in the Temple Scroll the king is restricted to having one wife at a time (the second is only permitted after the death of the first) pg 264.
They really don't deal much with the women in the community of the 'yahad'. I get the impression that they were restricted from the common meals, the assembly, the "pit" of the unlearned men, etc.
Interestingly enough, it seems that they utilize the Levitical prohibitions on the spousal qualifications. (Ez 44:22) It seems that a maiden was preferred, and upon consumation of the marriage was considered part of the community, where a man couldn't take the oath until at least 20 yrs of age. A widow could be married but only from within the community.
There is another passage in the Damascus Document that seems to allow a marriage exception to these Levitical rules. It states, Let no man bring [a woman into the covenant of holi]ness whom he knew to "do the deed" for a trifle or whom he knew [to "do the deed" while in the house of ] her father; or a widow who has had intercourse after she became a widow, or any [woman who has a ] bad [repu]tation while a virgin in the house of her father. Let no man marry such a one unless [she is examined by] dependable and knowledgeable [women] who are selected at the command of the Overseer who is over the [general membership; the]n he may marry her, but when he marries her let him do according to the re[gul]ation [and not] tell others about [her . . .]
I just recently read a book by Dr. Arnold David Coleman, Cohabitation and Polygamy, Never Banned by our Creator. In a discussion on Matt. 5 & 19 on divorce was that the two schools of thought in Jesus' day was by the Sadducees who believed in monogamy and divorce was for adultery only(who claimed to be the sons of Zadoc) and the Pharisees who were polygynist and believed divorce was for any reason. Dr. Coleman states that he believes the exception clause in Matthew was inserted by Erasmus partly because it is not listed in Marks account or Luke's and there is such astonishment in Matthews account to Christ's response. If he is correct, the phrase would be "even in case of adultery" instead of "except in case of adultery". In other words, Christ's response would have condemned both views. I am also fairly certain that Josephus records the Sadducees as being monogamist although if memory serves me correct, he makes a distinction between them and the Essenes as being two different sects.
Sorry I don't have the exact references available for the paragraph above. Just didnt have time to go back through all of it.
All of that being said, I'm not certain exactly how much authority to give to the Dead Sea Scrolls. They are an incredible resource filled with many gems of knowledge that has perhaps been lost or misunderstood. That being said, there are many things that I've found in the Scrolls that Jesus Christ corrected by his teachings. There are also many things that are apparently someone's interpretation of the way things should be. Like:
Young boys and women are excluded from eating the Passover
They observed a socialistic or communal economy
Prohibited sex with a pregnant woman
The handicapped were excluded from the common assembly, not just the Temple
The death penalty if you didn't read clearly enough to be heard in the assembly
You should not rest in a place near Gentiles on a Sabbath
A living person who falls into a body of water on the Sabbath could not be helped with tools, a rope or a ladder, but you could strip and use your garment to help him.
You could not have sex in Jerusalem
Any man getting married has to get the approval of the Overseer.
Penalties for laughing out loud, sleeping in church, speaking out of turn.
In short, I'm not certain that their beliefs on monogamy or polygamy really matter, unless you view them as being the true keepers of the faith and truth. I, personally, am not convinced that their beliefs really add up to the authority of Scripture.
